Ambig.uous.Info

So here it is. You’ve probably heard it before, but may not have realized it’s significance. The universe may be a simulation. In other words, we might be living in something like the Matrix. OK, so what. Why would some crazy sci-fi plot be any more convincing than any other religious argument you’ve ever heard? The reasoning comes from this paper or this simplified version by Nick Bostrom. The gist of the argument in the paper is that at least one of three possibilities must be true. Those three possibilities are paraphrased as:

1) Advanced civilizations destroy themselves before they can build universe simulations

2) Advanced civilizations don’t run simulations of universes like ours

3) You are almost certainly living a simulation

You can read the paper to see Bostrom’s defense of the three possibilities. In any case, he argues that we can’t reject any of these 3 possibilities outright. So we can assign some probability to each of them. He doesn’t suggest specific probabilities for each of the three but instead suggests that we ultimately need more evidence to assign accurate probabilities.

I haven’t spelled it out yet, but you probably now see the obvious argument for God. If we are living in a simulation, then there must be a simulator (note that this is not a rehashing of the old watchmaker argument). Granted, if God (or Gods) is just a simulator then he may be a little different from the God you learned about in Sunday School. Then again, it could also explain a few things. Like the whole idea of a “personal” God who is interested in relationships. If we’re running on a machine in some lonely guy’s basement then maybe relationship really is the point of our world. Or consider the old mythologies of Gods coming down to interact with mortals. Maybe these were the simulation’s administrators interacting with the world for one reason or another.

Anywho, this argument certainly doesn’t prove the existence of God. Instead, I think it’s something interesting to consider and a possible reason why strong atheists may want to downgrade to a weaker form of atheism. If you are curious about this topic, there is a lot of additional information on the web. Nick Bostrom has an entire website dedicated to the topic. I would recommend reading the FAQ on this site before making any knee-jerk reactions to the argument. He answers a couple of questions that initially came to mind for me. You can also get more information on related topics at this wiki or on wikipedia itself.

I think what might be the biggest objection to this argument for many folks is the assumption in the paper of “substrate independence”. This assumption essentially means that human consciousness can be achieved on any sufficiently powerful computer rather than specifically requiring a human brain. Restated, this means that a sufficiently powerful computer could become self aware if it implemented the appropriate algorithms. Of course, I suppose most of the people that would object to this assumption are probably not atheists anyway and therefore don’t need arguments for God. But I’m just guessing about that.

In any case, I’m becoming more convinced that I’m living in a “me-simulation.” The rest of you are all bots. Since I’m aware of the fact, why don’t you make things easier for me and give me all that gold you’ve been farming.

I like many of the stories I’ve heard about the founding fathers of the United States. OK, that’s not too original. But I don’t mean the idealized revisionist stories that turn them in to either raving ultra conservatives or wild hippie liberals. The stories I’m talking about are the ones that describe reasonable men who could listen to both sides of an argument and appreciate truth that may not fit in a pigeon hole.

Take George Washington, the first president, for example. He was fairly private about his religious beliefs but he is considered by many historians to be a Deist. Though his beliefs were unconventional, he didn’t remain secluded to cultivate his rugged individualism. Instead, he attended a Christian church on a regular basis (see here for a list of reference).

Next, look at John Adams, the second president. Like Washington, he had beliefs that ran towards Deism. Adams attended church services and considered regular Church attendance to be beneficial. Yet he didn’t feel obliged to subscribe to the full Christian dogma. Instead, he said things like, “Howl, Snarl, bite, Ye Calvinistick! Ye Athanasian Divines, if You will. Ye will say, I am no Christian: I say Ye are no Christians: and there the Account is balanced. Yet I believe all the honest men among you, are Christians in my Sense of the Word.” (more references)

Then, there’s good old Thomas Jefferson, the third president. Again, he is thought to have held Deistic beliefs. It is fairly well known that he compiled his own condensed version of the Bible that removed the parts that he didn’t like. This is usually presented as evidence that he rejected Christianity. However, compiling his own Bible required that he 1) read the Bible and 2) found parts that he agreed with. In addition, Jefferson regularly attended various church services throughout his life. (still more references)

In case you weren’t keeping track, those guys were the first 3 presidents of the United States. My point with these stories was not to suggest that these guys were orthodox Christians. In fact, I’m suggesting exactly the opposite. My point is that these guys continued to interact with the religious establishments of their time despite their nonstandard religious views.

I find this to be extremely rare today. And I have been to a Christian church nearly every Sunday of my entire life. I’ve been to Presbyterian, Catholic, Baptist, Black, Mennonite, Brethren, Charismatic, Evangelical Free, Methodist, Vineyard, Unconventional, Nondenominational, and all kinds of other churches. I find that the only people at church are the ones who consider themselves to be totally orthodox. And I don’t just go to Sunday morning services. I go to retreats and small groups and all sorts of extra-curricular church activities. What I don’t find at any of these activities are the doubting Thomases.

I’m sure this doesn’t come as much of a surprise. For one thing, most Churches aren’t too inviting to the skeptics. For another, skeptics also aren’t usually too interested in attending church services anyway. The end result seems to be the extreme polarization that I think is such a problem for American society. In other words, you either drink the koolaid or you keep to yourself.

For now, I offer this as diagnostic information to consider. I’ll offer more prescriptive advice in some later postings.

** A note regarding all the Wikipedia citations. I know some folks don’t trust Wikipedia. I see it as an easily accessible public reference. Yes, it can be biased or inaccurate. But I am using it as a well known reference for things that can be easily verified elsewhere.